Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output includes source timestamps, data may be delayed, results are bounded to a recent-trade sample, and there is no account/trading access. Only the freshness/latency detail is qualitative rather than quantified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the data returned, then the constraints. Every clause carries information an agent needs (link requirement, selection rule, delay caveat, access limits); nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the work of summarizing the return surface (prices, spread, volume, liquidity, trade sample, timestamps, workspace link), and it clarifies access limits for a read-only open-world tool. The only omission is any mention of the includeTrades toggle, a minor gap for a low-complexity 3-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67%, so the market and marketSlug parameters are already documented in the schema; the description reinforces the selection semantics for multi-outcome events, which maps to marketSlug. It says nothing about includeTrades, the one parameter with no schema description, leaving that gap unfilled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (an exact Polymarket link) and then enumerates exactly what is read: resolution rules, outcome prices, spread, volume, liquidity, bounded trade sample. An agent can distinguish this from the research-oriented siblings (search_research, get_research_article) without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Establishes the entry condition clearly: an exact Polymarket link/slug, with 'Multi-market events require selection' telling the agent what to do when a link resolves to several outcomes. It also sets boundaries ('No account or trading access'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.